The Bill O'Reilly thread

[sandman]

the howard stern interview was funny. bill really gave him the opportunity to promote satellite radio. i think those two are friends.

part 2 of 3 is on tonight.

[pilferk]

I haven't seen it, but Stern talked a bit about it this morning.  He said Bill was a pretty good guy off camera.  On camera Stern said he had to reign him in a couple of times (and the callers said the same) when Bill would ask a question and then talk over Howard's answers.

I've got it TIVO'd.  I do think it's funny that Bill is stretching it over 3 nights.   Talk about using an interview to full effect!!

[Booker Floyd]

Stern on Howard Dean

[D]

I actually listened to the entire radio show the night of the SF incident and trust me, he was being sattirical, he wasnt being serious.

U write any kind of satire down and read it without the emotion and written word and it sounds totally different as he meant it.

So dont give me the bullshit on San Francisco. Even the SF chronicle took it as satire and didnt jump on him about it.

Booker if u dont watch the show then u dont know and taking the info from a 2nd hand source doesnt overtake hearing it live.


The Howard Stern piece was hilarious, Howard kept telling Bill that he was gonna smack him around, it was crazy.

Part 2 tonight should be great as well.

I love when he told Bill to stop being a wise ass. that was priceless.

[Booker Floyd]

I actually listened to the entire radio show the night of the SF incident and trust me, he was being sattirical, he wasnt being serious.

I dont need to listen for 3 hours to put a 1:09 audio clip into context.

U write any kind of satire down and read it without the emotion and written word and it sounds totally different as he meant it.

...And the audio is available, both on MediaMatters.org and [at least once was] on O'Reillys website.  Ive heard the whole clip, in context, at least 3 or 4 times.

So dont give me the bullshit on San Francisco. Even the SF chronicle took it as satire and didnt jump on him about it.

So why are you avoiding answering my question?  I even bolded it for you: What was the point behind his "satire?" 

Im sure wont address the other points in my post: the deliberate hiding of this "satire" on his show or the lie that its "5 minutes long," but at least tell me what O'Reilly was suggesting by telling San Francisco that they shouldnt receive federal funding or assistance in a terrorist attack.

Booker if u dont watch the show then u dont know and taking the info from a 2nd hand source doesnt overtake hearing it live.

I watched the show in which O'Reilly played the clip the night it came on.  I listened to the radio clip more than once.  But thats actually unimportant since the site I referenced has audio and video of each instance...so explain the problem.  If its context, Id ask you 1. If you even checked out the clips they provided to know that and 2. What theyre omitting to alter the context?

[sandman]

I actually listened to the entire radio show the night of the SF incident and trust me, he was being sattirical, he wasnt being serious.

I dont need to listen for 3 hours to put a 1:09 audio clip into context.

U write any kind of satire down and read it without the emotion and written word and it sounds totally different as he meant it.

...And the audio is available, both on MediaMatters.org and [at least once was] on O'Reillys website.? Ive heard the whole clip, in context, at least 3 or 4 times.

So dont give me the bullshit on San Francisco. Even the SF chronicle took it as satire and didnt jump on him about it.

So why are you avoiding answering my question?? I even bolded it for you: What was the point behind his "satire?"?

Im sure wont address the other points in my post: the deliberate hiding of this "satire" on his show or the lie that its "5 minutes long," but at least tell me what O'Reilly was suggesting by telling San Francisco that they shouldnt receive federal funding or assistance in a terrorist attack.

Booker if u dont watch the show then u dont know and taking the info from a 2nd hand source doesnt overtake hearing it live.

I watched the show in which O'Reilly played the clip the night it came on.? I listened to the radio clip more than once.? But thats actually unimportant since the site I referenced has audio and video of each instance...so explain the problem.? If its context, Id ask you 1. If you even checked out the clips they provided to know that and 2. What theyre omitting to alter the context?

booker - you play right into what o'reilly wants - people talking about him. AND people talking about issues he wants publicized.

i had no idea what was going on with this Proposition I in SF. what a fucked up city that is.

[Booker Floyd]

booker - you play right into what o'reilly wants - people talking about him. AND people talking about issues he wants publicized.

i had no idea what was going on with this Proposition I in SF. what a fucked up city that is.

Great rebuttal. 

[sandman]

booker - you play right into what o'reilly wants - people talking about him. AND people talking about issues he wants publicized.

i had no idea what was going on with this Proposition I in SF. what a fucked up city that is.

Great rebuttal.?

thanks.

and thanks for getting the info out there.

[D]

Booker no offense but I have read thousands of your posts on this board over the years and you have sort of a dry sense of humor so I dont expect you to really get what he was saying.


Basically San Francisco voted to keep military recruiters out of high schools and SF also wanted the proposition passed so kids could get grants to go to school instead of using the G.I Bill or what have you.

So basically SF is against the military so he was basically stating that If you dont support the military, then why should they risk their lives for you?

Here is you an analogy.

it would be like a drug dealer talking shit about policemen, denouncing them, calling them names and not supporting cops but then they call the cops when some rival drug dealers are tryin to kill him.

See what Im sayin?

If u hate cops and curse cops and dont respect them, then why should they risk their lives for you?

Its kind of the same thing here.

He said though "of course the military would defend San Francisco"I guess mediamatters stopped the tape short of that.

[SLCPUNK]

Booker no offense but I have read thousands of your posts on this board over the years and you have sort of a dry sense of humor so I dont expect you to really get what he was saying.


Basically San Francisco voted to keep military recruiters out of high schools and SF also wanted the proposition passed so kids could get grants to go to school instead of using the G.I Bill or what have you.

That is a really watered down inaccurate version, probably the OR version if I had to guess.

[Booker Floyd]

Booker no offense but I have read thousands of your posts on this board over the years and you have sort of a dry sense of humor so I dont expect you to really get what he was saying.

If I had a "dry sense of humor," wouldnt I better understand so-called satire?? Dryness, as it pertains to humor, denotes subtlety and irony...sounds a lot like satire, doesnt it?? And no offense to you, but youre probably the last person from whom I would accept any analysis of my cognizance of humor or anything else, for that matter.

I "get" what he was saying - because its exactly the same as what he said.? He made a literal statement about the response San Francisco should receive from the government.? That suggestion, as I see it, and as you yourself go on to try to explain, is a genuine one.? And he embellished it by encouraging a terrorist attack on the city.? As I said, facitious or not, its not funny.? It doesnt even approach amusing.? And not necessarily because its offensive, but because its witless.? Like every attempt at humor O'Reilly makes,? it lacks any sense of cleverness.? Its dumb and easy.? And the fact that you find it "satirical" is enough to reject your judgement of my sense of humor.?

This suggestion, that the federal government should shirk any assistance to San Francisco - ostensibly in the wake of a terrorist attack, is controversial enough, but to amplify such a stupid statement by telling Al Qaeda to blow up a landmark is crass and stupid.? You also have to wonder what O'Reilly would have to say if Michael Moore facitiously told Al Qaeda to blow up the White House.

And of course youve failed to address O'Reillys blatant dishonesty in hiding the statements from his audience, or saying that it was 5 minutes long, etc.?

[D]

No now dont get ahead of yourself.

He wasn't sayin it literally and anyone who listened would've realized that he wasnt condoning a terrorist attack on SF.  That is pure nonsense quite frankly.

I'm glad you brought up Micheal Moore by the way.

Why is it because O reilly made a couple false statements he is a bastard and denounced by you and SLC HOWEVER

There are countless contradictions and half truths in Moore's documentaries but you all refuse to even acknowledge them and take everything in Moore's work as fact.

isnt that somewhat hypocritical?

People who are on O'Reilly's ass over SF are people who hate him and want to try and hang him for anything.

I can't speak for O Reilly, was that 5 minutes long, honestly I dont know, so i cant really answer it either way.




Like Howard Stern tonight telling O'Reilly he was gonna smack him around, a website could take that, spin it around, write it in a different context and make it seem like they almost had a fist fight on the air.

O'Reilly doesnt support a terrorist attack on SF, that was just his way of telling SF that they were wrong for not supporting the military. Should he have chosen his words more carefully and been a little more creative? Sure but he was tryin to get a point across and he used a very extreme way to do so.

I think most people realized that except for the obvious OReilly bashers.

[Booker Floyd]

No now dont get ahead of yourself.

I find this sentence hypocritical...

There are countless contradictions and half truths in Moore's documentaries but you all refuse to even acknowledge them and take everything in Moore's work as fact.

Talk about getting ahead of yourself...Please show me evidence that suggests that I take everything in Moores work as fact...in fact, find any evidence that Im a Moore fan or have even watched anything hes done.? ?

He wasn't sayin it literally and anyone who listened would've realized that he wasnt condoning a terrorist attack on SF.? That is pure nonsense quite frankly.

So he didnt literally suggest that San Francisco should be off-limits to federal government assistance?

"If you [San Francisco] want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money."

That train of thought might lead one to believe that if that were the case, the federal government might not respond to an attack in a city that it doesnt support.  You know what else supports that suggestion?

"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it."

If thats not what hes suggesting, then what is the point of his so-called satire?? By saying ""And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it," did he mean we actually should do something about it??

I can't speak for O Reilly, was that 5 minutes long, honestly I dont know, so i cant really answer it either way.

Did I ask you to speak for O'Reilly ? He spoke for himself...and he said the clip was 5 minutes long.? Ive already stated that its one minute and nine seconds, and only 30 or so seconds longer than what he actually played.? He didnt play the extra 30 seconds, the most important part of the controversey, and you dont see that as dishonest?

Like Howard Stern tonight telling O'Reilly he was gonna smack him around, a website could take that, spin it around, write it in a different context and make it seem like they almost had a fist fight on the air.

Youve provided no evidence that MediaMatters has taken his statement/s out of context, so Im not sure why you make a point of it, other than the fact that you heard O'Reilly himself repeat it and seem to parrot whatever he says.

[sandman]

http://www.operationjustsaymerrychristmas.com/

Merry Christmas!

[D]

What's hilarious is, I heard the show LIVE, I heard the tone of voice he was using, I knew the context he was saying it in, U read a transcript and heard a chopped down version on Mediamatters.

So yeah my post wins over yours since you are an obvious O Reilly hater, you have little to no personality whatsoever and now I wish I hadnt even started arguing with you because you cant argue with someone who cant see two sides of something. You have a one track mind when it comes to arguing, You believe what you want to believe, I could roll out the entire radio broadcast and it wouldnt matter cause you believe what you want.

Anyone with an IQ over 10 who listened to the ENTIRE interview, knew he wasnt being literal.

But Bitches bitch, so you have your right.

[Booker Floyd]

What's hilarious is, I heard the show LIVE, I heard the tone of voice he was using, I knew the context he was saying it in, U read a transcript and heard a chopped down version on Mediamatters.

 

So what youre saying is the intonation of his voice was different live than it is on the audio clips available?  I heard the audio.

1. What did MediaMatters "chop down?" 

2. How does it affect the context?

Ive already proven that O'Reilly was the one who "chopped down" the clip on his television show to change the context and omitted the part encouraging a terrorist attack against San Francisco, but youve failed to address that. 

So yeah my post wins over yours since you are an obvious O Reilly hater, you have little to no personality whatsoever and now I wish I hadnt even started arguing with you because you cant argue with someone who cant see two sides of something. You have a one track mind when it comes to arguing, You believe what you want to believe, I could roll out the entire radio broadcast and it wouldnt matter cause you believe what you want.

You could roll out the entire broadcast?  Even the 2 hours and 58 minutes that has absolutely nothing to do with what were talking about?  Go right ahead, Im interested in seeing what kind of point you would prove.

[mikegiuliana]

I enjoyed the 3 part stern interview.. Bill had a few nice words for howard outside of the interview on one of thiose fox new's shows on around 4 pm.. He said he liked him as a person..

[Charity Case]

Did you see the saturday night live skit last night which parodied OR.  It was hysterical.

[sandman]

Did you see the saturday night live skit last night which parodied OR.? It was hysterical.

i missed it. did they rag on him about his xmas crusade?

its funny, i was at sears yesterday and they had cheesy "Merry Christmas" signs that were just printouts from a computer on 8x11 paper. but there were TONS of them all over the store. it seemed as if they cahnged their mind about saying merry xmas and were told to get signs up ASAP. i wonder what caused them to change their minds?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The SNL skit was pretty funny. You think SNL may be getting good again?